The Development of Newtonian Optics in England (review)

116 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY does not quite fulfill its promise of enriching our understanding of analysis by providing it with philosophical depth. In any case, it seems to me that those theories of the emotions the author wants to associate with Spinoza and Hume, for once to give chronology its due, have at least this much to recommend them: they are both visibly Jerome Neu's proper offspring. H. R. BERNSTE1N Wesleyan University Henry J. Steffens. The Development of Newtonian Optics in England. New York: Science History Publications, 1977. Pp. viii + 190. $12.00. Is there a philosopher somewhere who is not concerned with the claim that modern sciences, especially those gifted with both mathematical expression and easily repeated experiments, are the best models for the attainment of certitude? To those who favor that claim, works like Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance ~ are outrageous, and works like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutionsz are offensive for the hint of a fundamental irrationalism in science. But a work like The Development of Newtonian Optics in England must be read, reflected on, and reread. One cannot reject the historical evidence so lightly as some have rejected the gander generalizations of Kuhn's work. Newton left a legacy of incomplete and suggestive explanations of the principal optical phenomena based on particulate light controlled by various forces. However, he also included an etherial environment in certain cases to support "fits of easy reflection and refraction." Steffens recounts how Robert Smith, whose work on Newtonian optics became the standard English text for years, systematically slighted Newton's hint of a partially etherial explanation of certain optical phenomena. This exclusively particles-with-forces optics existed its entire lifetime side by side with the Huygenian undulatory theory that eventually provided the basis for the successful overthrow of the Newtonian optics. Thus Steffens's work contains an excellent case history to test some of Kuhn's theses. It is fascinating to face the record detailed by Steffens with the question in mind: What could enable a theory to gain and hold the allegiance of a nation of scientists for more than a century when, as appears to be the case, no great physical or mathematical discovery nor anything more than a slightly more imaginative experimental technique was needed to force the first break in the hold of Newtonian optics on the English scientists? Steffens recounts how Thomas Young's work on the wave theory broke into a tradition of such rigorous cultivation of the panicle theory that Priestley went so far as to chide Newton himself for bringing in the wavelike "fits" to explain the colors of thin plates. The cultivation of the particulate theory was not without progress and some successful quantification, but the theory seemed to lack unity and fertility. When a new phenomenon demanded attention, a new force or new measure of an earlier force would be developed to fit the case. What Young had to offer had some greater unity and mathematical elegance, but it was far from complete and left large areas unexplained . But the contemptuous reviews which met Young's bold and somewhat abrasive espousal of what was seen as a largely Continental view of optics reveal a great many of the problems which philosophers must contemplate in judging the rationality of science. The reactions of his countrymen were so harsh that Young was unable to sell his published works and the publisher asked to be released from a contract to publish his lectures to the Royal Society. And for twenty more years, not without some fruitful work, the Newtonian theory was tenaciously cultivated in England. On reading this, 1 was reminded of something that an agricultural economist told me: He i New York: Morrow, 1974. 22nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). BOOK REVIEWS 117 had heard that a competent Russian scientist had done a work on the advantages of using compost. The work has been translated into English. My friend called the Department of Agriculture to ask why this work had not received the customary review in the appropriate Department of Agriculture publication. The response was: "Oh, they write that stuff because they...